Skip to main content

About this Show

Capital News Today

News/Business. News.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17






United States 48, U.s. 38, South Korea 21, China 20, North Korea 19, Grassley 17, Washington 12, Mexico 12, Schumer 11, America 10, Feinstein 8, U.s. Korea 6, Cornyn 5, Koreans 5, Canada 4, Arizona 4, Korea 4, Seoul 4, Mr. Gordon 3, Obama 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capital News Today    News/Business. News.  

    May 13, 2013
    11:00 - 2:01am EDT  

it's basically because people of the cia insist that reagan has to give them a legal and political cover. lecture in history saturday night on 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. an monday the korean ambassador after a summit between president obama and the south korean president. his remarks and panel discusses trade north korea's nuclear program and relations with china and japan were part an event hosted by the korea exhibition institute of america. it's an hour twenty five minutes. good afternoon. my name -- i'm the vice president of the economic
institute. i want to welcome you to the korea economic institute of america seminary on assessing the u.s. korea relationship looking ahead. regreatly honored by the opportunity to cohost with the distinguished group of journalists and breasting -- broadcasting leaders. and the political and economic situation on the korean peninsula. with president successful visit to washington, d.c., last week, i do not know a better way than to bring together leadings expert and opinion makers today. to give their assessment of the recent trip. also to look forward of the future to what opportunities and challenges that lay ahead for the important by lateral alliance. on the 60th anniversary of the u.s.-korean alliance i think all of you will agree the bilateral
are closer than ever. are positive. i hope all of you are looking forward to today's panel as much as i am. and today i have a distinguished honor as well to invite my co-host and comoderater for the program. mr. david. chairman of the club to say a few words of welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon. with the successful summit -- president barack obama, the u.s. korea alliance has opened a new chapter since. and in all bilateral relationships, there are new opportunities and tough challenges ahead.
as the two -- strengthening cooperation and deepening ties. about a -- [inaudible] of mine in town in seoul has a new ambassador from washington to korea. sort of asked me some help -- can you do me a favor. i don't do any favors to americans. this guy was so sincere in asking, what can do you mean by that? we had a big lunch. over the lunch he said, gee, it was under the president -- [inaudible] a little bit liberal the politician who lead the leftist the political camp at the time.
he said something that i would nt be very fond of. he thought, and his people thought, his people thought they could do it without americans and american help. and i strong -- [inaudible] and those members at the present who will talk to you and discuss the problem. the issues the u.s. and korea. we are heavily dependent on the american support at the time. since we are being confronted -- [inaudible] and so forth. the american friend is your ambassador there said what can i do to amend the situation?
i said go around and talk to the people. there are a lot of people who support whatever you say. as to enhancing the relations and understanding with the two people. okay. we start having -- symposium small gathering and at the press club. and finally those who attended the meeting, the mostly -- washington correspondent thought that why not we just, you know, create some kind of gathering. so american korean american club was born at the time. about ten years of time. and for the last seven years, we have been having seminars annually. with the american university and except this year because
american university -- [inaudible] so i talk to a few others at the kei whether they would be interested in having -- [inaudible] i'm very glad i come back to kei. when i was chairman at the time -- i used to have a seminar with the cfis. very good and very efficient organizations. but i think a kei better known in korea. and efficient at times. like the brookings institution or the heritage foundation. they are good people, good organizations. but kei is there for us. i'm glad that we can have this seminar with them. all right. i'm not going to go any farther. i'm going to stop gibbering
anymore by introducing a few friends who will speak to us. i brought the number of well known senate journalists with me. they are tough people. i'm going to ask them to stand up, right from the chair when i introduce them. i'm the chairman of the korean-american club. my secretary is -- [inaudible] ph.d. [applause] [applause] >> there is no relation with the former -- [inaudible] the publish of weekly
publications -- he also covers the monthly weekly number one in -- [inaudible] [applause] everybody was scared. he is a very good person though. only a few weeks ago he was president of the -- [inaudible] which is like the associate -- [inaudible] [applause] and mr. kim -- [inaudible] [applause] about ten years ago he served as bureau chief of embassy. well, a couple of more persons to introduce to you.
mr. [inaudible] washington correspondent. serves in the washington director for us. [applause] and can i introduce a speaker -- [inaudible] maybe? okay. has been at the school of international service of american university -- the [inaudible] only reason for me. has been there 23 years and six seminars with us. i deeply express my appreciation. better nonthan here, actually. [applause] he speaks korean more than me.
especially on the issue of korean peninsula. mr. evans revere, my best friend, former president of korea society. and i have known each other for many years back. while in seoul and the acting secretary of state; right. [inaudible conversations] yeah. [applause] and he's a [inaudible] finally it will be my great honor to introduce a topnotch person who serves in washington, d.c. my ambassador.
i've been covering the foreign minister for three years from 19 58 -- [inaudible] made the visit very -- [inaudible] i would like to really ask you give big hand. [applause] and why not i ask --
[inaudible] [applause] >> good afternoon dear friends. doctor abraham, distinguished speakers and guests. i'm pleased to be here today's program with kei and club. the timing of today's event regarding the korea u.s. relations could not be better. it takes place on the successful summit meeting. it was a historic milestone. in the meeting -- [inaudible] set the tone for the next four to five years in our country's bilateral relationship. as indicated for a joint session
of congress and the u.s. chamber of commerce, we are high point in our sixty year alliance. the solidarity with regard to north korea is resolute. and the fta free trade agreement makes us more economically dependent and the interconnected than ever before. the -- [inaudible] goes beyond the bilateral. it is regional and global. it seems to me wants to see korea continue to peace and prosperity throughout the korean peninsula, neats -- northeast asia and beyond. today's panelists have much insight on challenges and opportunities that korea faces ahead. not only with the -- in the
years, but also parks region regional and global vision. north korea, the subject of the panel necessarily looms large in this discussion. i'm confident that -- [inaudible] will be able to show different perspective on the -- [inaudible] and vision for the future including possible resolution with north korea in question. it is a pleasure to be here today and welcome you to what promises to be an engaraging forum. thank you. [applause] if i may ask our panelists to take their seats.
>> while they are being seated. i would like to add one more thing, we doubt some personal and official [inaudible] this kind of thing wouldn't happen. personally one of my best is -- [inaudible] right here. he's a washington resident and a good catholic and good businessman and honorable matthew lee who support in the -- [inaudible] plldz stand up. you're a big chunky guy. thank you very much. [applause] among the audience here one of my best friend -- white house many years and acting secretary
on the reagan administration. [applause] the acting secretary. [laughter] thank you very much. i would like to welcome all of you to our first panel discussion for today. entitled challenges and opportunities in the u.s. korea alliance. we have four distinguished panelists who will be giving their perspective on the recent summit and the critical issues that will shape our alliance moving forward. all of you have received their bio, so and also chairman has zone a privilege of introducing them. i will not go in to any great details introducing our distinguished panel. but i will give each panelists about ten minutes to speak. and after each of them speaks we'll have move it to q & a
session after wards. with that i would will just briefly mention our speakers today. first of all, i would like to introduce to you professor dean at the international schools at american university. not university of denver. there's a tip typo here. american university. and great friend of korea and actually kei did their inauguration conference at sis when they opened their new building. we're honored to have the dean here. of course, gordon flake, the executive director of marine and mike mansfield foundation. and mr. -- and finally -- [inaudible] will be our fourth distinguished panelist today. today.ore.
and it's tsh as he said the previous conferences of the sort has been held at american university. for those who have haven't visited american university and the school of international service new building recently where as it said conference. please visit at the corner of new mexico avenue and nebraska avenue. you'll know you're at the building and know you're at the garden when you see the -- donated by the island and the republican of korea to the school of international service at the time of the opening of the building and the time of our creation of the korean garden surrounds the building. now i am not a korea specialist by training. i'm actually a latin america specialist. although i have been to korea more than twenty five times over the last twenty years because the strong ties between american university and korea. and when i was invited to give the talk, i decided i would give
a talk that had to do with the long view of relations between the republican of korea and the united states. the long view back and the long view forward. and as latin americanist when i think of the long view back, i start about 50,000 years ago, when people from north asia became the people who established first ding come in korea about 8,000 years ago. a small number of them took off by boats, and eventually found their way to the west coast of north america. canada, and the united states. over the course of the past 50,000 years, populated all of north america and south america, the only residents of the continent until the advent of christopher columbus in 1492. they think of the relations as being relatively recent. as a lane tin america specialist
i think of u.s.-korea relations as having a long path. something we might be able to build upon. in term of contact with the west, i think you know in the late 16th century, the first europeans visited korea. you may not know that the united states contact with what be the u.s. united states w korea began around 1730 with the trade. korea had had a 2,000 year monopoly trade. after north -- it was discovered that he also grew in north america. so between 1760 and 1730 and 1860 there was a trade war between korea and canada and the united states for supplying china. and among the investors in the trade in the united states where george washington,
aster. it turned out that north americans fully exhausted it by 1860. they had to -- to grow it in the united states. but this was not the best of times in terms of commercial relations between the korea and the united states. [laughter] at the end of the 19th century, i think you're all familiar with the beginning of the relations between the united states and korea. the incident of the sinking of the ship the general sherman and the occupation of the island by the u.s. armed forces and the result and signing of the treaty. which was signed because of the king -- at that time, believed that the united states of all the foreign policies trying to open up east asia was the one with the most transparent agenda. they sign the treaty permanent
amity and peace between the republican of korea and the united states. didn't last very long, i think everyone knows. of 1904 there was a agreement between the united and japan in which japan agreed to recognize the dominion of the united states over the philippines, and also the dominion of the united states over hawaii that the japanese had close relations with l family in hawaii. in exchange the united states agreed to recognize the dominion of japan over korea. in the first half of the 20th century, creerns especially koreans interested in dependence from japan were encouraged by president wilson's statements about self-determination. but despite the fact that many
learn of korean independence operated out of the united united states. from philadelphia and have sheraton circle it's a wonderful statute to see. the united states was not sortive of the korea dependence. all of that changed with the attack on pearl harbor. and at that time, the united states developed very, very different view of japan and a different view of korean independence. you can see a remnant of the change. not only did the cherry trees were korean. they were the same verity of the cherry trees the japanese had given to the united states in 1912 that were planted. they actually came from the island. rather than from korea.
why the united states shouldn't trust the japanese. i invite you to visit the campus of the american university. the three remaining cherry trees and the plaque put there. since world war ii, the united states and south korea had an unusually deep relationship based, of course, on the u.s. occupation of korea. and then the return of troops in 1950 with the outbreak of the korea war and the continuing presence under the terms of the u.s. korea mutual defense pack. over the time, korea has been a key ally of the united states sustaining the interest in east asia, and successes that one sees in korea at the present time in 13.
white be the long view to the future? in the recent visit president park and president obama agreed that u.s.-korean alliance should contribute to world peace as the fundamental goal. the statement was greeted with applause, and also with skepticism here in washington, d.c. both leaders were aware that the president would make another important trip abroad this time beijing, china. i have other friends who assert that the relatively new u.s. korea free trade agreement forced through twelve long of extensive negotiations is the united states wedge to the asia-only trade agreement signed
in recent years. is a challenge. the opportunity that the united states relationship, which after centuries of highs and lows has experienced sixty years of unprecedented mutual trust and shared value. the opportunity is that this special relationship can transcend these partisan views and really be transformed to a global partnership which would contribute as the president said to the happiness and well being of all humidity. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. i'm used to be being paired on panel with academic or scholars who have a broadcaster historical scope and perspective than i do. i cannot pete with 50,000 years. as such, i'm going to be focus
on a more narrow perspective looking at the five-key issues that i think are very important in the coming days for u.s.-korean relations. at least from my perspective as a korea analysts and watcher our area of concern and promise for the relationship going the summits are not easy. you're giving the whole range of things. a great experience to the this -- there's an awful lot that will go wrong. and in particular, if you think about the current environment that we're dealing with in northeast asia with korean relationship and difficulty and the truly bizarre behavior of north korea oprah winfrey the to issues with territory then the south china seas.
it was a difficult time. it was a successful summit. i think president park created extremely warmly. the speech to the joint session of congress was a remarkable event and i think very warmly received. most importantly from my perspective i'll talk about it. there was no day light between the united states and south korea on the core issues related to the future of the alliance. that's an accomplishment. that doesn't happen organically let me go through five key issuesly discuss today. i'll try to keep my remarking brief. if you asked me at the beginning of the year what i was concerned about for the year 2013 i would list an order the top two. number one being sensitivity surrounding our nuclear cooperation agreement. those are my first two point. let me start with the one, two, three agreement. for for those who haven't delved
to this. the 1954 atonic energy act in the united states requires before the united states shares nuclear te materials related to a nuclear energy program that we have a peaceful use of nuclear technology agreement or one, two, three agreement named after section 123 of the act. the united states reached an agreement like that's with south korea in 1974. it's a thirty-year agreement which comes due in march of next year. the united states and south korea now for several years have been preparing to renegotiate the one, two, three agreement. the environment has shifted and made very challenging issue. we have seen now over thirty years plus of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. some weaknesses. in other words the more countries that are repress, the more people that have enrichment technology. the more difficult it is to control the technology in the proliferation nuclear weapons
risk out there. in general, as a global trend there's an effort to roll them back in and reign this them. on the other hand south korea has been a remarkable successful story. compared to 1974, if you look at sow korea today not only a major nuclear power in the own right. but a nuclear exporter to the united arab em rate and the great ambition for the future. the tension lies in sensitive issues. south korea's desire to have, like japan, access to repressing rights or the full fuel cycle as well as enrichment rights. and the united states concern global expansion of the technologies and capabilities. ..
in an order for it to have been put into place and implementation by march of next year and simply this just wasn't enough time. normally when we talk about kicking the can down the road and we talk about washington d.c. it's a very negative connotation and basically applies to the congress once again not doing what the congress is supposed to do. in this case kicking the can down the road is a very good thing. it's a recognition that we are far apart and working closely as allies to study the other options but we need more time to work this out to make sure we do it in a highly complementary way so i'm relieved to be very
blunt, i'm relieved the issue was is one where he could agree that we were ready to agree and that to me is actually a sign of a strong alliance. to be able to agree that you are not ready to agree and yet have it not spill over in the political level is a sign of great success. there's a lot of work to be done and a lot of debate to be had yet but again i think that's a positive step and it relieves a major concern i have been at the beginning of the year. the second obvious and fortunately is not resolved and will not be for quite sometime but it is the broader question. for this audience i don't mean to go into the long litany of historical legacy issues and territorial disputes of issues which are not just being raised that being raised anew by the administration in japan right now. all i need to say is that if you are looking at this in the context of u.s. japan relations, there are few issues right now that are more disruptive than
the unfortunate relationship between our two principle allies in the region between korea and japan so we have remarkably strong alliance relationships with japan and the u.s. and japan and are markedly strong alliance between the u.s. and south korea but a very weak relationship -- and that relationship and their periodic outbursts on both sides related to that relationship have undermined to be very blunt our ability to respond effectively to very real north korean threats. it is undermining our ability to coordinate in terms of logistics and in terms of communication in a and the terms and strategy to that north korean threat. it continues to undermine our ability to respond jointly to the challenge of surrounding the rise of china and the region and many other territories. it undermines our ability to fulfill president parks position for a broader role for the u.s. and for the glow. i highlight that is an area of ongoing concern i will
complement president on this issue because thus far and again we are early in the administration, she has i think very skillfully been allowed for government to respond to statementstatement s and actions taken in japan but she has kept herself above the fray and that i think is very forcing. if you look at the last decade the last period of korean japan relations were with the president korea fell applies to respond to every low-level statement and suggestion that came out of japan. again what you do is you preserved that space and i think so far that is gone very well. the third i want to address and i will move quicker through these last three points is the obvious one here there's a whole panel so i want go into great detail but the traditional area diversions for 50 years between the u.s. and they are k. has been out of a calibrator respective response to north korea? this is extremely difficult as you might imagine. on the one level you no north
korean threat is the fundamental rationale for our alliance. our alliance with dazed -- bathed in blood with north korean over the last decade our respective threat perceptions have varied depending on south korea's policy, depending on american focus post-9/11 on nuclear missiles. we really had difficult times coordinating that policy. i again i alluded to it in my opening remarks. i think that this summit was particularly a notably successfusuccessfu l in making sure that there was no daylight at all between the united states and south korea in response to the regional threats and actions and that again the accomplishment was noted. the fourth i will lay out on the table is related to the third in terms of that but something about this panel entitled challenges and opportunity for the u.s. in the future. i want to put something out that
has come out of folk in the past and that is unification. 15 years ago that he wanted to talk about unification and every every conference was unification. after the german experience and when the policy shifted to peace in the objective was not unified in the short-run but unify the long run we all talked about integration and eventually it became unification fatigue but in my mind there is no time more important for us to start focusing on the issue than right now. again and without soiling my reputation whatever might have by predict and north korea's demise i might say well i personally can see no clear and convincing evidence that the instability in north korea, i'm convinced that the north korean leadership can see convincing and credible evidence and a reaction to that. i'll will go into it more in the question-and-answer period ultimately i believe the role for the united states is
perceived to be playing in the process of unification is the defining issue for the future of the u.s. presence on the alliance of the peninsula and for the future of the u.s.. i think it's getting a short shrift right now because we don't want to talk about it but in the long run that's what we have to focus on. finally and to wrap up with my last one minute the korea u.s. free trade agreement. i think there has been a tremendous success and we are right now very full and to implementation phase. there are pizzie issues that have to be resolved. i would today want to put down a place marker and talk about what are the next steps. it's very helpful from the waning days of the administration during the entire five-year term of the bok administration to have this issue as a common agenda for the united states and its allies where we have reached what is truly a 21st century bold set
of free trade agreements. i would only say in my mind the logical next step is a more proactive korean role in the transpacific partnership. korea has a bold set of negotiations and the question is what point korea will decide to join the negotiation and become a more proactive partner in the united states and establish those standards on a regional basis. i will leave my remarks there and thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> i had worked on this correspondence in 1990,.
[inaudible] by previous speakers used english so well. i am in a worse position to speak english. please understand my situation. as a journalist i will start my statement based on previous summit -- with president park and u.s. president obama. they were celebrating the 60th anniversary of korea-u.s. alliances. i will let you know the 60th
anniversary in korean society, with the 16th anniversary implies. when someone is grown-up and marked the 16th birthday and all the families gather together and have a great party for the person who is 60 years, now a day that trend has decreased so many people are over 60 and 70 and even approaching 80 now. [laughter] >> he is only 60 years old. cities so in korean society, 67 does imply it significant importance. the two presidents last week
anniversary of the korea-u.s. alliance. it implies to the korean people that some very important change will take place, or some possible breakthrough might take place in the korean u.s. relations, in the south and the north korean regimes. they are looking for some possible change. of course as i'm not a fortuneteller i cannot say in advance what the future will be like but as a journalist i sense that the 60th anniversary implies some positive future.
especially in the relationship between south and north korea. we should expect that change in my view. let me say one thing. as you know well, the united states is the most powerful country in the world. nobody would deny it. and korea, even though them united states military and economically korea i might say, korea is the most successful country the united states has had relationships with. in other words, the most successful country among has
supported. the two presidents celebrating the 60th anniversary last week one is the most powerful country in the world and the other is the most successful country in the world and then the two leaders are getting together and announcing the 60th anniversary of the alliance. as a journalist, i expect change should take place this year because this is the 60th anniversary of the two nations alliance. whether i'm right or wrong depends on the future situation.
as the previous person mentioned the current situation in south and north korea, i would have to say -- [inaudible] anyway, in some sense, one extreme thing leads to the other extreme. there are many saying suggesting suggesting -- so in my view, if we were
celebrating the anniversary this year, we should also marks some great change in the relationship between south and north korea. that is my view. so, i want to look forward to some passover in peace for change in the near future between the south the north korean relations and then what should i do and what should americans do? as i said before i'm not a fortuneteller but i look forward to some possible or unexpected thing that will happen. this year, that is why we are celebrating the 60th
anniversary. am i right or am i wrong? it depends. thank you. [applause] >> yes, thank you very much. [inaudible] now as mr. gordon already pointed out, i prepared to talk with you about three points, three problems. one is the nuclear problem and the second is one is korea and
the force. i am not a -- english speaker. i am very sorry that i cannot say what i'm now thinking in my mind. [laughter] if i could speak in korea i could in fact say. i can say as soon as they said, anyway i will try to impress my
mind of my thoughts and my idea about the korean peninsula. the first problem, the first problem is the nuclear processing program. the korean government wants to have their -- nuclear waste but i don't understand why two countries have such confidence about the nuclear power plans. mr. gordon already pointed out -- i'm sorry, mr. prorate. there are two opposite opinion say thanks but the opinions are more of broad and the two
countries. the south korean government wants to have a system of nuclear waste but the united states, the u.s. doesn't have -- about the korean government's thoughts or ideas. the two countries have deep thought about the nuclear power. nowadays we see two differences decided by the negotiations. united states, if the u.s. ise
concerned making their nuclear weapons or properly use it for the situation in korea. so i asked the kaiser program to, the ambassador, the korean ambassador, but it takes more than two years to reach, to find out the appropriate rate to narrow the gap of thought. i hope, i hope we have two
countries with the possibility or capability to narrow the opinion gap. i hope in the near future to reach an agreement in an appropriate way to erase the u.s. concern about developing nuclear weapons and enforcing korean thought that we can use the nuclear waste for use for the economic development. the second is, just traditional
operational control. what i mean is the two countries decide that korea combines force command or they terminate as part of the big o'shea shins to separate korea and u.s. command with u.s. in a supporting role. now you know mr. -- said north korea is -- to japan and the united states with their nuclear weapons. so the this kind of tradition, this kind of tradition could have negotiations or not. you know a rating kim jong bong
in korea already insists that south korea should have a nuclear weapon. in order to face -- washington worries that south korea has a nuclear weapon, then japan would not keep silent. our situation is different. i would have to say okay then we ought to just keep silent and we have done nothing to start deterrents.
there are great reasons why such famous people, such a famous person insists. i think it's this kind of sentiment or these kinds of thoughts are taking place in some portion of the korean opinion and public opinion. so therefore now when i think about the transition of you know, operational control, yes, we have to get such a commanding
position as our independent nations. it can be understandable by our people. but another aspect, north korean -- [inaudible] we are facing you know, -- from north korea. now, what if north korea, we all consider power or oppression of
a power or negative force. what will north korea think? what i mean is we want to have confidence about our power. but when the tradition happens can we have such confidence to -- north korea? no, we don't have confidence it was such a strong position now. i would like to suggest or insist that tradition should be be -- we need more time to prepare ourselves.
until that time, the transition. the third one is you know the leadership team of eastern asia. i know very well it was not written by the u.s. congress or the u.s. citizens because it's -- there's no context. anyway, as they recommend with their comments and president park suggestion to have such a corporative system.
these problems i would like to ask about these problems to mr. gordon. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we had a very comprehensive commentary on not only president park's visit last week but also a whirlwind history lesson from dean goodman as well as great insights from our other panelists. as it is clear from the speaker's comments, last week was a very successful summit, a milestone marking the 60th anniversary of this alliance and is gordon said there is no daylight on a lot of these issues between the two governments including north korea and the international cooperation but it is clear from our panels -- panel panelists
that there are challenges and there is more work to be done. ranging from the civil nuclear cooperation to the korea japan relationship and an opportunity not only to grow but perhaps to change hopefully in a positive direction. so with that we open the floor to questions. we will take, we have about 30 minutes for this panel for questions so we will take a couple of questions and we will allow the panelists to respond to its go right here, right here and right here so richard, the gentleman next to you in the enron. >> hi, richard. thank you very very nice presentation. i have two very short questions. first one is basically, there are very few american koreans but there's a large contingent of korean americans in this country and i was wondering what
would be -- in the u.s. korea relationships and now with the u.s. government deal with this population to increase cooperation between the two countries and improve relationships between the two countries? keep in mind the recent trip by a president park resulted in a charge of abuse and that has created some kind of negative feeling among korean americans that they feel that koreans, korean americans are -- and i was wondering if you could address that. the second question deals directly with gordon's point about kicking the can down the road and agreed to not to greet this point. on the other hand it will make news that this was coming in
2014. they all knew the time schedule so if they had started the process two years earlier he wouldn't be in a position where we had to kick the bucket -- [laughter] sorry about that, that's not what i meant. but anyway we wouldn't have to do this two year delay and i was wondering what happened there and who failed and how do we get into that position? >> okay, right here. >> i am an intelligeintellige nce analyst. i'm wondering if there is a secret agreement with south korea that a unified korea will not be possessing nuclear weapons and it will not encourage nuclear weapons so they would be kazakhstan style agreements between the u.s. and korea and more importantly if such an agreement exists does
china know about a? my thought here is if china is assured that the unified korea is not going to be a nuclear weapons power, that it's that much less likely to intervene and prop up the regime. >> rob warren. i would like to ask for an amplification on a comment and that was that this vague proposition that came out of the summit with south korea to organize a regional dialogue in northeast asia. what is the potential of that and what type of role, leadership role in south korea, what would be the expectation? >> okay, so we have a broad range of questions with the korean-american community and the world to nuclear cooperation deal to any kind of secret
agreement on the future of these nuclear weapons to the regional dialogue issues. >> you know i am a retired reporter so i don't have a special knowledge. there are some secrets behind it but i think, i think my experience, there were several kinds of agreements. it could be done by working groups. but i don't know what the secret agreement is. >> okay. the question that was asked about korean-americans and what role that they might have. i think is a terminus advantage
for the relationship that there are so many koreans were korean-americans and some second-generation living in the united states to maintain their knowledge of korea and can facilitate and deepen the already deep relationship. in their almost 30 years since i started being dean of the school of international service there've been many korean-americans from a school that i've gone to seoul to study and initially they reported lots of derogatory comments by koreans about them being here and they don't report that anymore. at least from their experience there is a big change and as mr. nam said korea is viewed as one if not the most successful countries in the world in terms of the progress made over the last 20 or 30 years. i travel around latin america and i'm spending a lot of time in west asia now. people around the world like eager to relate to korea because of its success and i think that this experience washes over for
korean-americans and also for creative self so i think it's very very good for the kinds of progress that has been made. i think it also relates very strongly to an aspect of the recent summit that president park emphasized that we did not talk about which is economic relations. she made a very strong pitch for more visas. she and president obama signed agreements about technology cooperation and those indicate two things. there is already strong economic relationship between korea and the united states and is not going to stop. it's going to get deeper and there's going to be more traded that will be more important for both countries in the future. if it stops or slows down we are both in trouble. secondly i think mr. phnom's points about 60 years what is the big change is going to happen? i think there are two changes. one is in the economic relationship, the imbalance between korea and the bad states
live ship is changing. korea is ahead and say to many technological areas and i think that was recognized in this agreement. that is a huge change. the second thing that i think we should look for after 60 years is another area that we didn't talk about and that is culture. korea is a world leader in culture. i traveled to latin america. the most popular singer among 13 and 14-year-old teenagers in lima peru is young su kim. the lead singer for girls generation. that is going to be very important as these young people grow up all around the world. i don't have to tell you about cy's success on youtube. we can laugh about this and laugh about the fact that when i traveled from tokyo to seoul been in the planar middle-aged -- middle-aged soap opera -- the coastal protection of korea is another huge change so after
60 years while we might talk as we did so much about the security relations and they are very important, the economic relations and the cultural relations are really really important. i think mr. kim you were very wise to ask what is happening after 60 years and i think these are big things. >> you bring up a great point. we tend to focus on the president but the entourage that she traveled with was actually an impressive group of people. ceos of major corporations and so forth. i think we have overlooked that but the fact that not only is their political prowess but there was economic prowess that came with that. >> and the cultural stuff. >> yeah, and the cultural stuff. [inaudible] cannot answer that? >> sure, please.
>> north asia and president park i will tell you about but i think the south korean government has not -- announcement. there are many problems with this system. japan and china and north korea, these three countries have a different interest relating to economic or geopolitical imbalance. i think it's -- to achieve and president park told the united
states. but i think it has its own worries. there is an inference on that area. so i would have to say we can't expect an announcement but i think right now it has -- >> let me respond to a couple of the questions beginning with the question of whose fault was it that we didn't get the deal done in the one to three at raymack. yes it is true we have known about it for 30 years in terms of the deadline and should have been a surprise. to be really candid the administration spend all their political capital getting -- passim that is something i'm personally grateful for and i think the u.s. is grateful for in the business committed to his grateful for but really we know
very well the last year of his of administration was very much lame-duck in the notion me a the political heft to push something through the sensitive is the primary reason. again it's really unfair to assume that within two months they could resolve the trade there's actually something more substantive year and i want to respond a little bit too wiped he was saying. i don't see this as a question of confidence or lack of u.s. confidence in south korea. that's not the issue. in fact the u.s. opposition has nothing to do with korea. it's a question of presidents, not confidence of the question is if south korea can do it then why not iran or everybody else? this is the question of a global regime and global priorities that are butting up against south korea's personal aspirations and that is difficult. personally i would like this not to be kicked down the road for just two years but maybe five or 10 years until we see the outcome of this joint u.s. rok study. again, many people don't realize
that the united states is not reprocess our nuclear energy program, or commercial nuclear energy program. we don't do it. we find it inefficient, uneconomical and dangers. we haven't done this since 1979. we are not hypocritical in this regard and i would add one other point here. mr. nonwas mentioning when he was talking about the transfer of wartime ofcom that you have the south korean politician who is calling for their introduction of u.s. tactical nukes or for south korea to go nuclear. in response to that there was a survey which showed some 60% of south koreans favored south korea going to the year. that is actually a very useful poland statement in negotiating with the chinese over north korea because that allows us to save his chinese look because you are not reigning in north korea the south koreans may go nuclear. i would suggest it is not very
helpful when you are trying to negotiate a nuclear cooperation agreement when 60% of the population says we want to go nuclear so the timing was really not right for this. did that make sense? i will put that together. just a couple of other things real briefly. the question of wartime operational control. many of you know this was an issue pushed on the nationalistic way by the head of the administration in terms of south korea taking back sovereignty from the americans and they were very surprised to find under secretary rumsfeld they were pushing the old winning door and the american said sure, 2000 you i need god. there was a negotiation to push it back to 2012 and as a favor president obama said we will push it back to 2015. at this point i have not met anybody other than retired generals or the public sector who actually thinks we should push it back further. if you talk to the actual, not
anyone has thought that. if you talk to the dod defense establishment here in the administrative defense in south korea they are working this care plan at the solid plan. there was that they will make sure we preserve the best of what we had under the command and go forward. obviously if there was another couple months like we have had for the last two months for fundamental change on the security that may cause us to reshape their timing but as of right now i think korea is remarkably capable and moving forward and wants to move forward in the ministry of defense at that point. the final comment and i couldn't agree more. this is an interesting idea that has potential. it's clearly where the u.s. would like to go with a lot of regional stuff original stuff but as of now it's a slogan in search of substance. it's not there yet. i would just take the opportunity to throw a reference
to my earlier remarks though it is also a proposal that is impossible absent improved japan korean relations. you cannot have a meaningful northeast asian proactive initiative while korean japan relations are not good. so i would point that t. >> thank you. i think gordon answered my question which was going to be looking at the importance and how did we accommodate our goals in terms of operations and our concerns about its own economic interest in kicking the can down the road for another five or 10 years. i would ask, is there -- possible?
>> thanks. mike billington from executive intelligence review. while the department was positive as you of all said there is one bone of contention that came out afterwards from the ministry of defense in korea which objected quite strongly to the implication in the press conference between president obama and president park that korea was part of or in some way associated with the abm anti-ballistic missile system policy of the united states. my understanding is that the foreign ministry has not only objected and said we have our own but also said clearly that the u.s. abm system is viewed as a threat to china, not just in north korea and that president park or perhaps the defense mistress said this, we are far more concerned with the abm systems than with the short-term threat from north korea which is
a very -- so i wonder if one of the americans are one of the koreans could give me your view of that whole issue? >> thank you. i would like to build in terms of economic relationships to put the issue in a broader contest, that is the low economic powers which is the turn of the millennium. in 2000 u.s. by far was number one for us today exports and finance, china's number one. just one example from manufactured exports, 75% of u.s. exports and 95% of chinese exports. in 2000 it was three times larger than china and today china is 8% larger than us and
will double in the next year. this is really big for south korea. the first industrialized nation to negotiate free trade with china. because china is the number one trading partner. my question is, in this rapidly changing set of economic interests, what is in store for changes by the governments and in particular the economic strategy between signed -- china and south korea? >> three great questions. one about nuclear corporation one about abm and one actually about the balancing of u.s.-china relations given the shifting economic dynamics in the region. >> may i start with the follow-up? what a likely combination is good question and one that i
don't have a clear answer to. one way that i would rephrase that question is whose side is time on? when you look at the south korean position. we decided to delay the agreement looking back which side will think i wish we would have struck a deal in 2013? if you are south korea right now and as time goes on if the u.s. nuclear renaissance fizzles tied to japan and we don't do much we become increasingly less relevant in the field and south korea manages to export a few more -- joined gains greater access to uranium and other materials that does not come from the u.s., south korea will have much negotiating leverage and they won't need it. essentially they could not renew the agreement and go ahead and do it on their own. in a more positive light effort joint study of processing bears fruit we could be jointly developing the small modular reactors intl where we stand rit
is hard to make our judgments on either side and this is wh i think neither side is willing to go to the mat on this because we just don't quite know if that makes sense. again as i mentioned the u.s. doesn't reprocess. this offering case for reprocessing isn't quite there yet because the reality is publicly south koreans complain we are small country and we have no more space in our spent fuel -- so we must do this. the reality is even if they decide to successfully do by row processing in 20 or 30 years it would be 20 or 30 years before something came up and that would only take care of 10 to 20% of their spent fuel rods so it's not a solution to the problems that it is being sold as a solution to. something is there and we will just have to work together. i agree with the other panelists, we we are allies in which appeal to work on this. wa
said it is a sign of strengthening the alliance when we can agree that we are not capable of agreeing and not have that shape us politically we are working on it. that is what it comes down to right now. the abm treaty is actually a very good question and it is a troubling area that leads to a more sensitive broader challenge over the last several decades and south korea and tied to the economic question. as china grows in economic significance and importance in his role, korea will be increasingly wary of participating activities that are perceived to be anti-chinese, korea is not in the ttp have primarily because of that perception and likewise. korea very much is supportive of the u.s. almost across-the-board in terms of theater missile
defense or in terms of the function. but they are wary of is the political ramifications of participating in something that is perceived to be anti-chinese so this is a case where they are trying to maintain strong alliance relations with the united states and at the same time not anger their largest trade partner. that is the type of tension we need to anticipate going forward. >> i would like to suggest that you know the delegates from the united states and korea worked together. i usually take the example that some people have an idea of persistence. you can see the mountain.
the shape is like a triangle. [inaudible] now there's no usable way to fight each other with a shape, so now the problem of nuclear waste and these kinds of elements. the second is the abm. some experts are worried about it. korea could be in the front of the -- of china and washington. if this program is used so i think you know the abm program comes the abm system program
should be very cautious and very thoughtful. that's that's all. >> and earnest question about changing economic relations and the rise of china. one thing we have to remember the rise of china vis-à-vis the united states is and the only thing. there's also the european union whose economy and some measures as large or than the united states. what does the rise of china means? does it mean the united states in the european union are less powerful than they were before? i would argue no. there is a book that just came out about the nature of power in the world and the argument that he makes is that there is more power available today than there ever was before and there is going to be more power in the future. so i would argue, i agree with his point that the united states continues to have the power to have before and even more power and china is also increasing but
also indonesia is increasing in power. look at his trade statistics. look at his political record. india is increasing. turkey is increasing. or still is increasing. there is as ernie said a radical restructuring of economic relations in the world and it's moving us away from a unipolar or bipolar tribe polar world to a multipolar world in which there will be a lot more opportunities, a lot more room for one nation that starts to falter like japan didn't slow down the global economic project. others might be opaque things up. hopefully we won't get into some kind of a the trade wars where we fall into some global economic negative situations like has happened a number of times in the past but i think ernie is very right to point out that there is a radical global restructuring but i think it's
very important that it's not a zero-sum game. it's a multiple, positive-sum game game and it said it two or three powers there are at least seven or eight operating in the world and more in the years to come. >> great. it is 3:30 and please help me thank our guests for their real rich and fruitful discussion. [applause]
>> at monday's state department briefing the spokesman told reporters that a serious peace conference may -- to early june. secretary kerry said the possible conference could be held at the end of may. you can see more of that from
the state department anytime at >> secretary kerry called since last week to get the geneva to meeting together and we are getting facts that is unlikely to happen this week but will slide into june. >> up and take the second question first if that's okay. the secretary said at the time that he would like to do this as early as is practicable and that of course he said by the end of may or ideally by the end of may may possibly. as you know there are many different players, many different countries involved here. it looks like it will slip past that to possibly early june. i don't have an exact date at this point. i can tell you in terms of calls and it may be more productive that i give you a list at at the end of the soy don't forget anyone but he has been in
constant contact over the past couple of days and through the course of the weekend since its announcement last week with the russians with stakeholders in the region, with leaders in the region. he has spoken with everybody from special envoy brahimi. he spoke with foreign minister friday and again this morning. he has spoken with prime minister cameron. i will get you a more concrete lists that what i can assure you of is that this has been on his mind since that night, after that evening he actually wanted to talk about the next day so we started making those immediately the next morning. the first question you asked was? >> i think you got both of those questions. >> i would just reiterate in terms of the timing of this what is most important and we are working for the plans and working through the logistics.
we are not quite there yet but we want the key players there and he is looking forward to doing this as soon as possible. i am happy to do that. >> you know where it will be held? >> not yet, we are still in the planning stages. >> do you perceive, do not want to see -- as they have in the past and is somebody not welcome? >> all of those pieces will be discussed through the planning process and that is what the secretary is discussing with everybody from special envoy brahimi to others in the region appeared he said at the time and i would point a to this, that this is based on the original geneva meeting last summer and of course that is a pool of participants that will be part of the discussion here but in terms of the final plans where does not there yet. >> you had success in talking to
the opposition about securing their commitment to coming to these talks? >> i would point you to the statement that was made at the leivowitz over the weekend. there are so many, that's true, by the opposition and courage in, they were encouraged by the, i want to parse their words so i'd point you to abut encouraged by the steps. they are going to vote as you know later in the month on this this but the secretary and ambassador ford had both an in touch with with the the opposition or since ambassador ford was in touch with them last week in the secretary is very focused on participation. >> cam made anticipate there might be elements from the syrian regime? >> if i could point you back to what the secretary and the foreign minister lavrov said that evening, the goal here is of course to get representatives of both sides to the table. we don't have yet a list of who those people would be. that is not something we are predetermining but that is part of the conversation taking place leading up to this international
conference. .. this is very simple. a complete substitute to f744 and in line with senator grassley's request. i thought it was very appropriate that we try to have the language, the final language, after we made all the technical corrections, available in advance. and so we made that in advance.
i believe it was week ago tuesday so that when people offered amendments they would be offering it to the actual bill. in many bills we do this so-called sponsor0s right at the same time. so it is technical. it fixes legal citations, grammatical and stylistist corrections, and and several important important clarifications. it clarifies the speak series saturday that will he surcharges to pay for the cost of the legislation. it clarifies the visa century charges in the bill don't sunset. it amends the merit based point system to charge a $1,500 surcharge for merit based green cards to pay for the bill. it qualified aliens in engineering and math are exempt from the green card cap. clarifies that biological and medical sciences are included in the list of stem fieldsor videoe
verification of remote workers under the everify system. i would ask unanimous consent so sponsored amendment be secretaried. >> first of all, let me explain to all members of the committee, i have so many questions here and if i was going to ask all these questions it would be seen as a stall. so i'm going to did some -- to ask some questions that i think are most important. first of all, i'd like to make a statement that nobody has to answer but i want to bring up the issue that we were -- we sent several questions to secretary napolitano before -- after -- as a result of the hearing we had with her, and we haven't received any answers to those, and i don't expect anybody here to speak for her,
but i think that we're entitled to those answers because we know the administration's positions on the legislation. and senator schumer, i'm going to ask you these questions or anybody else that wants to answer them. i'm trying to make the point that these really aren't technical, but we aren't going to quibble over that one word. but i want to make a point that -- and a question of why and how did you decide to move from $100 million of implementation in the original bill, to $1 billion implementation now. it seems to me that adding one zero isn't a technical change. >> okay, yes. the answer is very simple. from the time we came up with our bill, our watch word here is to have this bill pay for itself. we do not want it to incur any costs to the taxpayers, the treasury or anybody else.
that will be balance. the costs of administering the everify program and the exit-entry visa program. the costs of strengthening the border, and the costs of just administering the new immigrants who will be coming here. we wanted to make sure that was paid for, and obviously that is not an easy equation. you have to make sure the amount of money needed, we consulted with cbo, we consulted with the appropriations committee. we consulted with the tax committee, and with other relevant departments, and the reason we have changed the numbers to make sure there's a balance. >> i have five questions on the trust fund but only ask two. will the trust fund repay all of the 7-1/2 billion to the u.s. treasury? >> yes. >> it will have more money than that but certainly repay the
7.5 billion. absolutely. >> yeah. i want to make a statement and let you counter it. i don't think there's enough in here that gives congress the ability to track the money, and i don't think the language holds executive branch accountable for the money that is authorized to spend. >> mr. ranking member, senator grassley, i know you feel that way and you have eaverred an amendment to make sure there's better tracking, and it's our intention to accept that amendment when you eaver -- when you offer it. >> okay. i think a very important change here that takes a lot of explanation -- and i don't mean you should take a lot of time to do it but we need to know what on this parental rights provisions that are part of the technical change -- it allows states to removed parental
rights if the parent is unfit or unwilling to be parent of the child, it appears that technical will now require states to locate parents who may be in detention, in addition to those who may have even been removed from the country. so, let me ask three things all at once. were the states consulted on the provision? what responsibilities will the state have? and will the state welfare employees have new burdens of notifying people in detention about their intention to terminate parental rights? >> okay. the purpose here is this. when somebody is deported, sometimes they're deported because the acts they've committed may be criminal, because they're a bad parent. they beat their kids we don't want them to have any rights in that case. on the other hand they're deported for other reasons and they're parental rights should not be extinguished and we make
that distinction here. we hadn't made it in the original bill. we did consult the state in doing this. if you have suggestions, we're open to them. it's hardly one of those immutable sections of the bill that cannot be changed. and we believe that the burden for the notification will be on the federal government. >> maybe senator feinstein would want to join in this in regard to the blue card. >> that's you. >> i need to know why this provision -- well, let me say what i think the language does. it appears that the changes in the substitute related to blue card applicants are obviously more than technical. according to the summary sent from senator schumer's office, the new change allows people outside the united states to apply for blue card. why was this added? is this a legalization program for people that are here and
people that were removed or voluntarily departed, and how are dependents treated. >> is a understand it, what was added -- i just candidly thought right now -- is that an h2a visa holder is eligible for the blue card. the l2a is the current contract program that the adverse wage rate applies to that has been a real problem for farmers, but these contract workers come in, annually, and work ag in generally groups. so, they would be eligible, apparently forks blue card status. i want to take a look at that, and i will, senator. >> after -- will they be eligible for the blue card status after they have left the country? >> that's a good question. >> was that your intent? >> no, this is not my intent. this give minutes ago.
>> will you follow up on that. >> i will. >> okay. i agree with the group of eight that they put a merit-based into this bill, and the technical amendment compromises this, i think, considerably. it appears the substitute makes changes with regard to this merit-based system. the underlying bill said that people in rpi status may be granted a merit-based immigration visa. yet on page 268 it says the rpi individuals are not eligible. so i'd like to explain that change and can someone explain why the point system was changed with regard to english proficiency. >> the merit-based system, the point system which was largely put together by senator graham,
above everybody else, is for new immigrants. so, when the rpi people want to apply for a green card and there are sometimes when obviously they will be able to apply -- they do not go through that system. that'sthat clarifies. it is for new immigrants in answer to your question. >> okay. >> i would note on this that -- go ahead -- >> i would note that traditionally the sponsors of an amendment are allowed to just -- to amend their amendment, and then of course it's open to amendment. so there is any objection to the sponsors' amendment of their amendment? >> just preserving at the right to object, i'd like to ask a few
questions. you added about 30 new pages to this, i think senator grassley has touched on some of the technical details. i wonder, senator schumer, of you're prepared to tell us at this time what the new legal flow of immigrants will be into the country, how much it will be increased, what we'll see over ten years, because i think members of this committee, and others i've heard expressed publicly, a concern that we don't impact adversely the work, the salaries and job opportunities of legal residents and americans, who are hurting at this time. can you give us a statement of the numbers? your best judgment of the numbers? >> first -- this is a concern that is being made but there's one point that is being lost in the debate. we're not dealing with this in the abstract. we're comparing it to the present situation. if we do nothing.
so, the question that to me is relevant -- and i think to most americans -- is very simple. it is not how many people does your bill let in. i'll answer that in a minute. at it that how does the bill compare if we do nothing? everyone is decrying the present system. because millions of people cross the border illegally. and our bill, as i said, will focus is to stop future flow of illegal immigration. we're very strong on it. glad to see my colleagues in texas want to do more than we do in terms of border patrol and everything else. so must mean we're going in the right direction. he just doesn't think it's enough. but we certainly do. so, under this bill -- >> well, we can do at that time without adding new legal -- over the current levels. >> i'll await your amendment what if to do with people who are here illegally now. if you believe they should be
self-deported -- i'm just asking the numbers. >> they're going to be here. so, under this bill, it's true, many of the 1 million people here in unlawful status are going to get a grown card. it's naive to ignore the facts that these people are already here. i think most americans recognize that right now. to say this is adding to the number of immigrants is simply not really a logical response. it's an emotional response. because every year illegal immigrants come into the country in addition to the ones who are here. so, unless their goal is to deport the 11 million, which i don't believe you're suggesting that, isn't it better to have the people who are already here stodge labor laws so they can't be exploited at the expense of u.s. workers, registered with the government, doing what they're supposed to do, pay taxes. that's the premise of our bill. and it is true that our bill reduces the family and employment green card backlog,
but again, those people are already coming, even if we do nothing. so in the future, our bill reforms our legal immigration system, making it more geared towards work, high skills, immigrants which i know is something you told me you support. last year, 70% of our immigrants were family-beared. 14% of our immigrants were employment based. our bill changes that around significantly. we get closer to 50-50. we do this by eliminating the category of sibling immigration, diversity visa, although we do make room for families that are already waiting to be united more quickly, and move to a merit-based system. so it's not that, oh, this bill is allowing many more people to come into this country than would have come. they're coming. they're either coming under the -- under law or not under law. and what we do is try to rationalize that system.
but i would argue to you that this argument that they're going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that they're going to be lots of millionsn the country illegally if we don't have a bill. >> its hard to calculate the -- by eliminating theso so-called bag log which is the cap placed on the number of family-based immigration based people who can come in. those will be moved forward and some of the new flows will be removed entirely, and having those moved out, you have a new flow of people that come in under that. so you will see an increase in numbers through that -- that is 4.5 million, as i calculate. los angeles times has found that under the new legal entry into the country, you have a 50%
increase in that. which would be 15 million on a regular basis, but it could be more. that's sort of a mid-level estimate of what the numbers are. so you have 11 plus five, that's 15, plus another 15, is about 30 million people, is it not? given legal status in the next ten years? and does not -- shouldn't we be concerned about the future flow if we're going to have such a large number of people being advanced in their -- >> i would say there's some simple math here. you're adding 11. my they're already here. >> jobs -- >> try to answer your question. >> they're competing for jobs right now. i ride any bicycle around brooklyn in the morning. i see people gathered on street corneres. okay? some guy in a truck comes expo says, i'll pay you $10 if you
work all day. they're competing with americans who wouldn't accept ten dollars a day to work in those jobs. so they are competing right now -- and i would argue that they lower the wage scale much more than if they were registered and working in a legal way. number two -- but they're here. so take away those 11 million. we do allow family unification. the humane and right thing to do. but many of those people would be allowed to be unified under present law. some is sped up but not that much. third, i would say to my colleague,ings you don't know if the economy goes very well here, and the economy goes badly in mexico, and we do nothing, the number of illegal immigrants will increase and could be far beyond what this bill is. so, again, my main point here is this: the system is broken. the american people have given us a mandate to fix it. we fix it in a rational way, and to simply point to who we allow to work here, and who we allow
to come here, does not take into account who would be coming here and be allowed to work here if we continued to do nothing, which i think just about everyone of each political side has said is unacceptable. so how would you deal with the 11 million people who are here with the people whose families are torn apart? what is your solution? i know you're critical of our bill, and i respect that and i know it comes from the heart. but the status quo will also continue to drive the numbers up, and i would argue in a way that is less friendly to the american economy and less friendly to what is the right thing to do for our families than present law. >> well, senator schumer, you're most articulate and able and you know i respect you greatly. >> it's mutual. >> but, look, itself is not going to be helpful for american workers when these 11 million
are legalized. they'll then be able to take virtually any job in the marketplace, and many now are because they're illegal and didn't come here lawfully, are not able to take the best jobs. but then they'll be able to compete for those, and we have millions of americans unemployed, we have a huge incredible number of people dropping out of the work force. wages have not kept up with inflation. and i believe you've got not only a situation in your bill that legalizes immediately a large number, maybe 15 million, but your annual flow increases, and so this adds even more to the country, and polls show that the american people believe in immigration but they think if anything the numbers ought to be reduced. not increased. not increased on top of the amnesty that will be in this bill. i'm really worried about workers. i think we need to talk about that a lot. that's why i thought a more
discrete package of legislative proposals separately more like the house is doing, a step-by-step proposal, would be better. do you dispute the fact we probably legalize over 30 million in the next ten years? >> yes, i do. >> mr. chairman, would the -- could i ask a friendly question of senator assume center. >> of course, and then normally something lick this would just be -- something like this would be down routinely so do that and then maybe we should just call the role on the amendment. >> senator schumer referred to the bill's increase in border control agents and a reference to section 1102, which in fact our reading is it just increases customs officers, not border patrol agents. and we'd like to get a clarification. >> yes. it's not border -- sorry. excuse me. it is not border patrol.
they're already at 21,000. their numbers have gone way, way up and most people think they're an adequate number. we need technology and other things to do this. this this customs officers who have to process the visas. >> we need both. >> the bill allows both. we do not specify out of the $3 billion what it should be used for. on the good advice of some of my colleagues who shared the borders as you do felt it would be better to leave it up to the experts as to which would greatly stop the flow in some places you may need nor agents in some places you don't. >> thank you for the clarification. >> okay if there is nothing else we can call the roll on the amendment. the clerk will call the ripe. >> mining pine fines. >> eye. >> my schumer. >> eye. >> mr. durbin. >> eye. >> mr. white house. >> eye. >> mr. klobuchar vote proxy.
>> m- >> vote proxy. >> blumenthal. >> aye. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. hatch. >> aye. >> mr. -- >> no. >> mr. -- -- [inaudible] [inaudible] mr. chairman, 14 yea's, four nay's,. >> the amendment is agreed to. i have a list of 11 amendments in order today and i hope we can do in block a moment to explain. the first is my amendment to
prohibit border crossing fees. it has broad bipartisan support, i think. senator cornyn -- the putting a financial burden on the border communities. senator graham talked about the canadians who come down to myrtle beach. as most members know, my parents-in-law-french canadaans and came to vermont as immigrants. my wife was born in vermont. learned to speak english when she was four or five years old. on the northern border we go back and forth all the time. families visiting families and relatives. it is major part of our economy in our state of vermont, i suspect in most northern border state, an imposition of a fee, a
toll, to go back anding for makes no sense. by the same token, the southern border e is the same thing. so the first amend is the one that senator cornyn and i work on, the border cross fee. the second one is one i worked on with senator grassley, reporting to senate and house judiciaries. the third one is a grassley audits the border trust fund. the next one is senator sessions, 36, expanding the functions of the ombudsman. the next one is the cornyn, reporting requirements to the fbi. the next one is the positive land owner and oversight commission. the next is the robert schedule for dhs. status report. and next, feinstein seven, grant
program operations. next, feinstein eight, maritime. 24, clarifying the role of the dhs amendment. the -- so there are five democratic, six republican amendments. i want to move them -- they're now pending and they've been called up. i'd like to vote enblank. >> could you give us the numbers. >> i just did. >> there's probably a lot of people who -- >> i yield to senator grassley. >> senator feinstein asked for the number. >> i have a question on your
amendment. because as i understand it, it would prevent the federal government from collecting any border crossing fees for pedestrians or passenger vehicles. are fees such as this needed for us to establish an effective entry-exit system so we know who is entering the country and whether they actually depart, and the second question i would ask you, does it apply to passenger vehicles used in commerce? >> no. this -- my feeling is we're spending enough on fees and taxes already as americans to protect our border. this is basically a toll going across the border and tells our customs agents, our border people, you're going to become law enforcement and toll enforcers. anybody who lives in a border
state, north and south, knows the number of communities that are connected. to tell people that we're going to pay a fee going back and forth makes no sense. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman, thank you for introducing the leahy amendment, which would prohibit the department of homeland security for imposing a border crossing fee at land ports of entry. just to give people an idea of the size and scope of what we're talking about, through laredo texas in one year, the largest land port of entry in the united states, 1.7 million trucks crossed at that port of entry, and hundreds of thousands of individuals. mexico is our third largest trading partner, and we need to make sure that our borders, not only are secure gateways for legitimate commerce and travel, and we shouldn't
discourage this important economic activity with unnecessary fees or taxes. the department of homeland security's announcement they were contemplating an additional fee alarmed men of my cop it students and appropriately. so there are better ways to fund infrastructure improvements. i just wanted to say i appreciate that. also, i would just appreciate the opportunity to cosponsor sessions 36 and feinstein number 6 in addition to leahy one. >> senator lee -- i appreciate what senator corn anyone -- cornyn said. we have worked closely together on this. senator lee go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a very quick question for you on leahy one. line seven and eight of the amendment makes clear it also prohibited any study from being conducted with regard to fee. s. can you tell me why that is important?
>> put that in the -- the obama administration, their budget, had proposed a study to lead to the imposition of a fee. i just don't want to open that door at all. the idea of having a fee -- and i totally disagree with the administration on this -- the idea of having a toll booth in effect on our borders, our nation of all nations, to too this on our northern and southern borders, where we have had such a relationship as senator cornyn just talked about, on the southern border, as i know living an hour's drive from our northern border, i just don't want to open this door or have them waste money on planning for something that, frankly, i feel the majority of republicans and democrats in the congress would oppose.
>> mr. chairman? >> senator hatch. >> i agree with you. i think they'll just reciprocate if we do something like that. let me just mention something i'm concerned about. i'm concerned about reports of grant moneys being used for activities not related to border security. i've heard of parades and a whole bunch of other things they're using the money for, ask i'd like to see some accountability provisions that ensure that grant moneys are used as intended under this program. so i hope that we'll take that into consideration as a concern of mine. >> mr. chairman? >> senator sessions. >> i appreciate the amendment. it's similar to mind and has one provision that is the same, that is that the only -- only buildman would be -- ombudsman could help victims of crime.
it does, however, go further than mine in giving the ombudsman the power to review, examine, make recommendations regarding immigration enforcement policies, strategies, and programs. i'm not aware of a -- of any ombudsman with that much power to oversee the administrative -- maybe even the inspector general, who is supposed to maintain the integrity and the policies of the agency. so i'll look at that. i won't object at this time, and would note, finely, i see my friend, senator schumer here, he still hasn't given a number. if 30 million isn't right, what is? and we're not counting at this point about two million or so a year of nonimmigrant temporary workers and we need an estimate for the chain migration that will occur. but all of those will be employed in the country and
competing for jobs, and professor borhaas at harvard has written a book and has clearly stated this kind of immigration flow will pull down the wages of working americans. there's no dispute flint that, that i can tell, and we need to be honest about it. and we need to ask, what this right amount of flow that comes into the country? because at a item of high unemployment, low job growth, and slow job creation, which we can expect will continue under the new normal, we need to consider that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> yes, on the amendment, it's my understanding that has been modified by taking out paragraphs four and seven, and i just want to verify that's been true. >> that is correct, senator. >> okay. then, mr. chairman, i would just
make an explanation of my amendment number five. it requires an annual audit of the trust fund. obviously this is taxpayer money, and this fund appears to be a permanent fund. every fee, penalty, fine guess into the fund. and yet there seem to be no significant parameters on how the secretary uses the money and no accountability to congress. the technical substitute that we've brought up, increased from one hundred million to 1 billion and we need to make sure the public knows how the money in the trust funding being spent and if it raises and spends money as the bill intends. my amendment requires the chief financial officer of dhs, in conjunction with the inspector general to submit an annual audit. financial statements concerning the trust fund. i think it's a good government
amendment and i'm glad that it's being accepted. thank you. >> thank you. and before we go to the amendments, senator, did you wish to say thing further about yours as modified? >> with regard to senator sessions' concern about item six on my amendment, as to the traditional role of am ombudsman. this particular provision to review, examine, and make recommendations, that is a role that the taxpayer advocates already does, and the current law allows for this type of review. so, we're simply fleshing out the current law, and we do have am ombudsman who performs these type of functions and that is the taxpayer advocate. >> thank you. we do have a quorum. >> just mention very briefly the two amendments i have, the first one, when you're on the border,
those who feel the impact first are those who hold property on the border. particularly the ranchers there along the southern border. i have a routine conference call with them. a lot of the input is already in the bill. we wanted to mike sure they were represented on this border oversight task force. that's what this amendment does. two ranchers or two property holders on the southern bother border, one on the northern. with regard to the second amend we're just making sure that to a gao -- through gao review that the information we're getting from the department over home lean security is correct, and just another check to make sure that we're getting the border plan that was -- >> senator from arizona talked to me about that before, and it makes a great deal of sense. so, senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be brief. my amendment number six on trafficking reporting is in the
bill, and i think it's important that we focus on not only trade and commerce, legal immigration and illegal immigration but also the scourgr of human trafficking, and -- this amendment would help shine the light on handcuff trafficking and bring victims of the crime out of the shadows and encourage law enforcement to tarring the perpetrators and would update the united states code to certify that human trafficking is the most severe form of violent crime for purposes of the fbi's uniform crime report system. it would increase information statistics available as per cases of human trafficking, helping law enforcement and victims advocates in their fighter to eradicate modern day
slavery. it its complimentary of the uplying bill and makes changes in the visa program which provides relief to trafficking victims who want to cooperate with law enforcement ofs and the only way the visa program can reach its full potential is by identifying as many victims as possible. the amendment would encourage state and local law enforcement to identify, investigate, and prosecute more cases of trafficking. this is crucial because state and local law enforcement are often the first opinion of contact, as you know. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment. thank you. >> thank you. those in favor of the amendment, segue any identify by sayingeye. >> eye. >> opposed? >> ayes appear to have it, and we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, -- 13 senators present. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous
con isn't i be a cosponsor of leahy one. >> it will be entered as a cosponsor, and anybody wishes to be named cosponsor to any of the amendments we have, the leahy, grassley, feinstein. the record will be open so you can. senator grassley, you have five amendments. did you want to offer any of snows. >> i want to offer amendment number four, but before i do that i just would -- i think we ought to move ahead on amendments but i still had some questions on title one, and some along the line today i'd like to ask those questions but not right now. >> thank you. the ranking member knows i always yield to questions. >> your cooperation is well and i appreciate it, even though we might not ato be on everything but we do get -- we do move
things along. now, let me be up front on this. this is a very controversial amendment but i want to say that it ought to not be controversial based upon the polling that has been done, saying that the massive amount of people want an immigration bill passed because the polling always had associated with it border security. the condition that the border be secure almost as a basis for doing anything. and also, i'd like to see my amendment as a truth in packaging amendment because i think that it has been the basis of most everything that the group of eight has said about their legislation, that the border has to be secure. and so the point of my amendment is, there's going to be massive amount of change in our immigration policy, even before the border is secure, and so my
prepared remarks follow up on that main point. this amendment would require the secretary to certify to congress that the secretary hat maintained effective control over the entire southern border for six months before processing applications for rpi status. to summarize, the bill requires the secretary of homeland security, within six months, that a bill is signed into law, to submit a comprehensive southern border strategy -- that would be number one -- and secondly, southern border fencing strategy. after those plans are submitted to congress, the secretary shall start processing applications to legalize the 12 million people presently in the united states. the result is that undocumented populations become legal after a
mere plan is submitted, despite the potential that the plan could be flawed or inadequate. so, what if, if the plan does not work? the bill is as a result legalization first, enforcement later. just opposite to what the people think they're getting. and i think just opposite what a lot of members of the congress think is in this bill laid before us. rpi is more than probation. it is legalization. once a person gets rpi, they can -- they get the freedom to live and work here. they get to work authorization, driver's license, opportunity to move up, all this before the border is truly secure. the sponsors tell us that people will wait ten to 13 years. they say it will be tough and
expensive road, even say it would be easier to just go home than to go through the process. i disagree. rpi status is de facto permanent legalization, never to be taken away, given the history of these types of programs, it won't end. and that brings me back not to elaborate on it as i have in the past, but to mistakes made in 1986 and i voted for what turned out to be mistakes, and we screwed up and shouldn't do it again. no supporter of the bill has said that rpi status would be taken away. triggers -- the triggers are meaningless and millions of people will be legalized in the first few months after we pass this. and the secretary has the authority to renew the program, which i think is obvious would happen.
my amendment improves the trigger and fulfills the wish of the american people. my amendment ensures that the border is secured before one person gets legal status under the act requires the entire bor, not just high-risk areas to be controlled. it says the secretary's security and fencing strategies as called for in the underlying bill would have to be fully implemented before green cards are distributed. if we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or future administrations to secure the border. there will be no push by legalization advocates to get that job done. so, if the people of this country want to make sure the border is secure first, before any other movements are taken, it seems to me that one of the forces that best can make this happen is if all the advocates
for legalization, as well as all the people in the administration, as well as all the people here on this committee and in the congress that know our immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed, we all are in the same boat together to make sure that the border is secure. so we need to work together to accomplish that goal. the american people, as we know, are compassion not or we wouldn't have a million people coming here every year under our legal programs. many can come to terms with the legalization program. but many would say that the legalization program should be tied to border security and enforcement, the inference that's been left. almost every poll shows the same results. sure, people would consider legalization program but it's almost always tied to condition of border security. unfortunately, too many people have been led to believe that the bill will force dhs
secretary to secure the border. first the bill only applies to the southern border. second, the bill only says the high-risk sectors have been deemed effectively controlled. the bill defines effective control as the ability to achieve and maintain persistent surveillance and an effective rate of 90% or higher. some people would think -- and i'm not here to say this right now -- but we should enforce existing law and that would be 100% operational control. under the secure fence act of 2006, congress told dhs that the bored sheer be 100% operationally controlled. this was also the metric that the senate used as a trigger when we last considered legislation that obviously didn't get passed in 2007 immigration bill. under current law, operational control means the prevention of all unlawful entrys into the united states, including entries
by terrorist, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other contraband. we all know that this administration abandoned that metric and just decid not to follow the statute. this bill before us weakens current law by only requiring the southern border to be 90% effectively secured in some sectors, only the so-called high-risk sectors, and my amendment doesn't deal with that 90%. that stays the way it is in the bill. but let me explain why border security is so important. according to the congressional research service, there are a variety of threats to our border. potential terrorist and transnational criminals. foreign nationals use the porous border to import threatening good us such weapon0s of mass destruction, contraban, other products mend to do americans harm. not everyone that crosses the
southern bored happens to be a resident of mexico, that just wishes to find a job and earn money to send back home. we categorize people crossing the border from mexico other than american, and they're crossing other than --th than mexans, should say -- the last figure i saw from 2010 that more than 60,000, quote-unquote, other than mexicans crossed the border that year. thousands are coming each month. not securing our border is a national security issue that cannot be ignored. so allow me to explain the amendment. under my amendment, secretary would have to prove that we have, quote-unquote, effective control as defined in this bill itch don't change that definition. for six month's before application for registered provisional immigrant status is processed. this means that the bored el will be secured before one person gets legal status, which
in turn entitles that person to work that, travel permits and the ability to live in the united states and make sure that nerve the united states that wants immigration reform is in the same boat, trying to push for it. i realize that one or more sponsors of the bill may be concern evidence that border security section is weak. minute member of the group of eight already said the bill will have trouble passing the house and will struggle passing this senate unless the border security title is fixed. this person admitted there's work to do on this issue. my amendment is a step in that direction. people don't seem to trust the government will get it right or that this administration is dedicated to security. we don't need a new bill to do that. we need to prove it to them, and this amendment will prove it to them. i yield the floor and thank all my colleagues for the long period of time i've taken to explain my amendment.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, and i very much appreciate what the ranking member is trying to do. i'm not a really sure it's necessary. let me tell you why. the security act requires 700 miles of border fence. it's my understanding we have built 651 of those miles. that would leave 49 miles left to go. we have more than doubled the border patrol. i think at it in excess of 20 to 25,000 people on the border there are drones. there are cameras. there are overhead manned vehicles. and border intrusions are substantially down. so if you do this, the impact of it is to have people differing over where to go next, or -- and to delay the triggering of the application process. candidly, senator, i am amazed at the progress that's being
made. just the california border alone, it's amazing to see how it's been tough ended, -- up to of toughened and that stepped along the way and the beauty of what happenedes not necessarily it all relies on fence. it relies on backup, automatedded facilities, cameras, aerial surveillance, i mean, don't think we're ever going to have a perfect situation. as long as people can tunnel underground and swim rivers. but i just hate to see the bill delayed when all this progress has been made already. >> could i react? >> sure. >> first of all i don't question the chairman's -- or senator from california's sincerity, and i hope what she says is accurate. about it seems to me your argument makes it all the more easy just to have the bill say so. >> senator flake?
>> mr. chairman? >> thank you. i really appreciate a lot of these amendments put forward and i know the ranging minority member wants to make this better and make the border more secure, and believe me, coming from arizona, that's what we want as well. but we not only suffer from people crossing the border, we suffer from having a big population of people who are here illegally now. and we don't know what status day arement we don't know where they are. they're in the shadowed and we have to bring them out. and so i think it would not be a good move to wait on that process. we've got to know who is here. and in order to implement the other parts of the bill, the second border, if you will, is work place enforcement. the faster we can get those out of the shadows and then start that process, which the ranking minority member has been very strong on over the years of getting mandatory everify in this process. and it is. but to do that effectively you
have to bring people out of the shadows, and to delay that process, i think would not be the right approach. so, i -- like i said, i know that the ranking minority member simply wants wants to make the d more secure. so do we. believe me in arizona we feel it, but i think it would be the wrong approach to delay bringing people out of the shadows. thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> go ahead. >> mr. chairman, i acknowledge the good faith of everyone in trying to achieve the goal of knowing who is coming into the country and why they're here and i agree with the ranking member, senator grassley, this is really a confidence building measure. border security. and if it doesn't work as advertised, that we well have failed in our responsibility. well not have solved the problem and so i know we have --
california's border, i believe n texas, arizona's is different than texas. we have the longest stretch of common border with mexico, and -- 1200-miles and to senator grassley's opinion can i was in brooks county, texas, on sunday and monday. inon sunday alone they detained 700 people coming across the border ill lee. 400 of them were from central america. so, mexico is not been a good partner the terms of preventing illegal innings into mexico. mexico's economy is doing better, but honestly, central america's economy is a disaster. and they've got a lot of law enforcement problems. so a lot of of people are fleeing that situation. but the problem is that we got to get this right. and the department of -- to
senator flake's point, in 1996, we passed a law that said you have to have an entry-exit system and that still hasn't been implemented. we've made promises before in legislation which never seems to come to pass, and so that's why i believe in the importance of the triggers in this bill, and i think what senator grassley proposes is a common sense additional trigger. let me just make another point. the -- in the gao in 2011 in reviewing the department of homeland security's border security efforts said that less than 45% of the southern bode border was in operational control. that's 2011. and khs in response suspended that metric and said they were going to come up with an index, and eliminate this concept of operational control. i think the gang's proposal in that respect is actually an improvement. certainly over what the
department of homeland security has done. i think we can all agree that the number of detentions or an preparations at the border tells -- apprehensions at the border tell us nothing about the people that got air and the border patrol, on sunday and monday, were tell'ing me a they think they catch one out of every four people coming across the border. maybe one out of every three. and that's a problem because 360,000 people were detained at our southern border last year so if your fig that it they got one out oft three or one oust four, that gives you an idea of the scope of the problem generally speaking. so i think the only way we're going to be able to credibly make the department of homeland security do what this bill says we want, which is to secure the border, is to provide tryingers -- triggers like the
one senator grassley suggested and also, again, commend the gang of eight for what you have done in the by speaking, but i just want to make clear that there is no border security trigger currently in the bill, and what senator grassley's proposal would impose an effective trigger i think would incentivize everyone to do what we all know needs to be done and we want done, which is to provide operational control of the border. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator schumer. >> thank you. i appreciate both the comments of my colleagues from iowa and from texas. look, our goal is to make the border much more secure, and we do. we do dramatically. alves i said, -- i just want to repeat this because it's worth repeating. three years ago, the effective rate -- the effectiveness was 68%. that mentality for every two people they either caught or
turned back, one got over the border. it's now up to 82%. how did that change? it changed because we spent $600 million. we didn't tell them do this or that. we said, spend the $600 million to maximize your increase in operational control. now we are giving the same people, who have done a good job, in some sectors it's above 90%, i believe in the yuma sector in arizona, it's above 90% and that was one the -- is that right, senator flake? and in el paso, one of the texas sectors is above 90. and so what we want to do is increase to the effectiveness at the border. there's no question about it. and the bill goes a long we to do it. it does have triggers. the triggers are the exact same way the improved the boredder in 1968 to 1982.
whether it bee more people, more drones motion fencing to get to the 90% goal. so there's no question about it. we want to do it. now, the problem with the grassley amendment is that it says certain things that are virtue -- it changes the word substantially to fully operational. does that mean if one radar is broken in one part of the border that you can't begin legalizing the people who are here? and as senator flake said the longer they stay in the shadows, the worst for the american work force and the worse for the states and the worse for all of america. that's what i believe this would fix. one radar broken, or three. out of 500. not full request operational, let them stay another five years in the present rotten status quo. and i'd make one other point and this is in regard to my friend
from -- senator cornyn. i appreciate the good words you said about legislation. may not meet your full demands but you talked about operationol control. that deals will having a person in each play. ...
>> air patrol, a drones, as in the stand it and senator mccain knows the military there are only two drones on the whole southern border and only eight hours per day because they don't have the personnel. but i learned when they were courageous don't find a person that brought them and they are good about finding everybody. night to day or cloudy or stormy but they can follow them 50 miles is a you don't just have somebody standing at the border to catch them, you can catch them much later and they know the route that these people go. so the idea 100 percent
operational effectiveness was abandoned because it is virtually impossible and to pay for it without breaking the bank but secondly in many areas the effectiveness is different in different places and in some areas especially those because of a river or ruggedness, it is better to use stuff from the air with the personnel to apprehend. so this amendment would set a standard that would delay forever any legalization to bring people out of the shadows and at the same time it demands too much one size fits all and it would be less effective and actually making the border safer and more secure than what we do in this bill. one other point*, we also require some of the border
is not holding to prevent legal immigrants. 40 percent of the people better here illegally, because they have overstayed their visas. they come in legally and they overstay and we don't even check them. one of the triggers we have is the exit entry system must be implemented. second, the reason people come and we know this, is for jobs. they are so desperate to buy was making $1 per day and i could make $4 an hour in america i would come and spend $2 per week for my sick mother? of course. but we have the verify mandatory system to be instigated some deaths had demanded for many years. but to simply say you have to have people all across the of border to treat each
one the same and it must me 100 percent so three radars are broken you don't even begin that allows people to come out of the shadows? i don't think it makes sense. >> i urge we oppose this. >> senator grassley has cast -- ask for a roll-call of. >> senator schumer you mentioned 68 and 82%. i am not clear what those referred to. 68 and 82 percent. >> gao report of the effectiveness rate of the border from the year 2012 december budget measures from before we implemented the 600 million so over the
last five years. >> i would love to see that report because i don't believe that is the case. gao also found less than 45 percent of the border was under operational control. i want to make clear i am not suggesting you need to have a body every step of the way. we need a layered approach that gives technology with tactical infrastructure and boots on the ground but we need to get the job done. the worst thing that could have been is for it to pass and not solve the problem which i know you want to solve but the bill does not do it. the problem is the effectiveness rate does not take into account people who cross illegally and the department is not tracking. does not take into account the people who got away according to the anecdotal reports could be to out of
every three or three out of every for the substantial implementation does not tie anything into metric stand as you said senator schumer schumer, 90 percent is the goal but there is no trigger that implements this based on any metric and that is why we try to get some metrics and measures in place to allow them the goal that we say we want to be achieved to be accomplished. >> i do have that report here that distinguishes between operational control and the effective rates. they abandoned operational control because they thought it was useless measure. i don't know your experience senator cornyn every expert
i have talked to says it has gotten better. is it good enough? no. but it has gotten a heckuva lot better. >> i grant you that but it's 360,000 are being detained each year coming across but it could be four times that. i just want to tell the senator i was at the border on sunday and monday and senator feinstein would find this interesting we are not just see the border penetrated from people from mexico or central america some of the rescue beacons were people were rescued because one county had 129 people dying coming across but it is it english and spanish and chinese. why? because for $30,000 you could get a smuggler to get you up through central america and mexico in the
united states and other showed me a pitcher of three gentlemen that they detained all wearing some form of turbid and i said where are these folks from? base in afghanistan. and the border patrol has documented people from countries of special-interest including state sponsors of terrorism has been detained coming across the southern border. everybody knows this is a national security issue as well. credibility issue and national security issue so we have got to get this right and hope we can work together to get a right to. right now it is not sufficient of all the things that have improved that is our metric. >> mr. chairman this is a huge, huge part of this whole discussion and what is about. senator grassley is correct
in 1987 legalization ochered with the enforcement never ochered. we are about to do the same thing if you pass this legislation the amnesty is on track and the triggers don't work and then we have that will occur no matter what. then what about enforcement? this on both counts week in existing metrics we require the entry exit visa allport's we have put that before in the visa reform act, the 9/11 commission insisted repass the law but this bill does not attempt that board does not complete the entry exit system that they said it will not work and they are correct. with regard to the border the reason we had some improvement is because during a the 2007 debate and
when the bill failed we did putting more money and president bush even president obama had more border patrol agents hired. so there are more at the border but they're telling us as many that get by for everyone caught we caught 350,000 that means 1 million people are crossing the border. this is not fixed. with regard that we built the fence, that is totally false. the american people need to understand this is how you get taken to the cleaners. i offered legislation to the bill 600 or 700 miles of double fencing at the border and they choose where to put it. then i noticed the appropriations bill later that year had no money in it
for fencing. congress voted overwhelmingly to build a fence when appropriations bill came up later there was no money in it. so we held up and had a big fight over the bill and eventually money was put in for the fence. but it was never built. only 36 miles of the legally required double fencing occurred with automobile barriers and other barriers and their virtual cents. remember that? computers and we spent a billion dollars and it was abandoned because it never worked. we don't have the fencing that the law requires even today. and i can recall vividly right after president obama it took office there was a raid in washington state workplace to identify a number of illegal workers
and he apologized for the action and did an investigation of the people who were doing their job and nullified the enforcement action and said we will not have those enforcement actions anymore and we haven't. the eyes officer have sued this of frustration saying your blocking us from doing our work and denying us and telling us we cannot comply with the laws of the united states. what i want to say to my colleagues in the you have worked had long dash letter -- worked hard but we have a right to be dubious idea think i have talked much more than senator schumer has so i think the american people have a right to demand that we get it right this time. we could do this.
i think it is possible to do this. i would just note with pleasure senator rubio yesterday said he would support an amendment and other things that would mandate specific portions of the southwest border to be fenced with double layer fencing along with the funding to do it. we have a bill that doesn't do that and we need to do that. the bill does not require fencing. i appreciate the work of my colleagues but we will read the bill to make sure the promises are carried out this time and we don't have a shell game of amnesty occurring and promises of enforcement that never occur >> senator durbin and senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this was a big issue when
the gang of 8 came together. there were strong feelings particularly on the republican side. two senators were from border states senators mccain and senator flake who has already addressed this and they were determined reid did more and redo but let's not overlook what we have done with border security some suggestions about three atta for getting away you cannot find the evidence to back that up. i know my friends have said it is anecdotal because anybody can say it is anybody. but look at the specific facts about this border. is the safest in 40 years. how can i say that? the president said in the "state of the union" and what is my basis? fiscal year 2012 u.s. government spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement. that is more than we spend
on all other federal law-enforcement combined. fbi, secret service, a d.a. d.a., atf, we spend more on enforcement and a permit from insecurity has deployed some presidentship levels of technology in for structure and the number of agents as more than doubled 10,000 and now 21,000 today. more than any time in the history of border patrol we have deployed thousands of miles of technology including as senator feinstein have noted, a mobile surveillance systems come on and on with significant results. in 2011 the latest year which we have statistics available, 85,000 individuals you evaded capture whiloinethe southern border illegally.
compared to 600,005 years before. from 600,000 to 80,000 according to the first time in 40 years migration from mexico has fallen actor or below zero. there are more mexicans returning van coming across. said have after saying all those things the positive positive, this bill says we will do more. we cannot move forward until we have a comprehensive security plan to put that together and we start spending billions of dollars to implement adding to what i have described. riot agree with my colleague we have sat together 25 different sections through this bill and it he said is america safer is if 11 million people live in the shadows or is it safer
we've follow-through then come out of the shadows to tell us who they are, where they live and where their work and pay their fines to submit themselves to a criminal background check? of course. the grassley amendment delays it and i would say to senator sessions before we could move from the rpi status, i will concede other things must occur. i have heard senator sessions on the floor and offer amendments on e-verify. he believes it and we do to it is included from this point* forward applying for a job we want certifiable proof of identity. no bunker bidding up with a social security number to pretend to be someone but
now proof of identity. i will just finish that to 40 percent of undocumented people overstayed their fees set and the will complete this system. it is a requirement. >> i think this is a very good debate and by anderson and the amendments offered are in a sincere fashion and i definitely get where people come from with border security. you should be skeptical. i & but eventually we have to come up with a plan that would work and those served you go is make things better but the question is is it better to get us to where room want to go? >> we have a canadian border.
i dunno how many are how maybe. >> why are we okay of their but not to this house? >> because canada is a place they like tuesday. we like canada and love canada and they want to home but a a a of a they want to come here but we cannot have never betty in the world coming to america. we have to create order and chaos you have to do something with the southern border you don't do with the northern border but if you don't agree with the difference is jobs we don't
agree 11 million come from the southern border where they can find work and life is miserable. but it seems to me if you can control who gets the jobs you have gone a long way to control illegal immigration. as long as the jobs are available you cannot build the fence high enough to stop people but if you could make it hard to find a job as well as get across the border you have done a long way to fix the problem and i thank you do. here is the trigger a comprehensive strategy admitted to congress as southern border financing strategy submitted to congress. we have 352 miles of single fence and a vehicle fans people driving up and down the road to hundred 98 miles and double fence and i agree
with senator sessions if you don't push it they will not build one more offense. they don't have that desire. we will push them and complete the southern border financing strategies. there are 13 drones available only to of them fly because the faa will not let them fly. the bill says he will put more drones on the border than 13 and they will fly all the time. the goal is to have 100 percent awareness. it is finding ways to stop the entry and you have convinced me you don't need a fence if you're part of the border because when you come across it to you have 1,000-foot cliffs to climb if you can climb that we should consider giving you the visa. [laughter]
the putting of cents on the top of 1,000-foot cliff it doesn't make sense and you have private property problems you don't have an arizona but that it -- if that is the goal, once you see if you can find out how to interdicted but the ultimate goal is to cut make sure you cannot find the job as easily as you could. you control the got -- the jobs in secure the borders toe but we will never get there because of what senator schumer said. here is the crux of the problem there is a lot of skepticism about securing the border on our side that on the aside that border security for us is not to keeping people out but
keeping them stuck but i want them to be stock to protest the but from the help your status but in the electronic exit system that is the key for the strategy to get the drones flying but before you transition. >> mr. chairman i was the
co-chair and we traveled to mexico. i think my colleague does it mean to suggest that while there is poverty in mexico as a port area, it is not a hell hole and there are great things going on but it does have some difficult areas but they're good people with a lot of progress than they are proud of but all the reasons people want to leave for river reason. i feel like we're writing travelogues. [laughter] i promise we will have a roll-call.
>> mr. chairman? >> as of jay dray 15, a 2013 comedy a chess salt 352 miles of primary pedestrian financing, a 299 miles of vehicle financing with 651 miles and 36 miles are secondary financing. the border patrol has reportedly identified a total of four fencing and barriers.iss the congressional record and research service
that goes into of surveillance. >> there will go against the amendment because i don't think we want to slow this down. it will be hard enough. i have no doubt as to this nation's commitment to enforce the border and we have shown that over the last decade. i am here long enough to know where things were 15 years ago and how much better they are today. so i am convinced your reporter. >> averages point* out to that the secretary of homeland security has already declared victory and said the border is secure.
it is one thing to talk about input and, as the money we spent the and and what technology in place but another to talk about output or result. if we talk about output we want the border to be secure not talk about how hard we tried. that is like a plumber coming because you have a leak of the new plane out. i baldies materials in place and tried to fix it. but i've understand we had a significant investment and i acknowledge that but it just hill leaks. we should look at us the results
thin the items are a schumer is not here but his staff is present to take notes. i looked at the gao report in 2011 and focuses on the tucson and not the ninth of the border. what it says. >> that is hardly a good measure of operational control or effectiveness because they talk about the people they encountered and not the three out of four or two out of three that the border patrol tells me are simply getting away. we all want the same thing. we really do i think. so ourill we put measures in place that make it more likely because
if we pass a bill based on extravagant promises and it fails then we have created a bigger mess than basis no. thank you very much. >> the last word senator grassley. >> figgie for the privilege of closing remarks. to clarify, some people are advocates for the language that is in the bill thinks but they may have gotten the radio when i said during my opening remarks that the secretary unilaterally disregarding fell 100 percent operational control standards that is now in the law. and that raises the question since they can ignore the 100 percent operational control standard if we don't
make this very clear we could have a situation where 10 years down the road we don't have effective control if it was unilaterally disregarded by the secretary in the case of present law and what is to keep them from doing it under the new i think senator sessions made the best argument that referring to the mistakes we made in this to remind people who made the mistakes i don't want to make it again and my bill will help